Ripe or Rank: 12 Angry Men

This year, Rotten Tomatoes released its annual list of Essential Movies to watch this time adding an extra one hundred films rather than shuffling out any of their older choices from previous years. Many a movie-goer will often check out how a film rates either with Tomatoes or other reviewing platforms before deciding on whether to see a film, however, an element that Tomatoes provides is an audience rating.

Lately, audience ratings seem to be falling a bit higher than official critic ratings, as shown by the freak hit The Greatest Showman which underwhelmed critics yet remains to be a massive hit with audiences today. Can the same be said for this list of what they call "essential films?"

This series of film reviews intends to find out.

At the top of the alphabetical list, we have 12 Angry Men.

Released in 1957 this courtroom drama was listed at No. 2 of the American Film Institute's Top 10 Courtroom Drama films. Based on a CBS teleplay aired in 1954, the film was adapted to the silver screen and the stage by Reginald Rose who wrote the original story/teleplay. Rose would also produce the film alongside the top-billed star of the film Henry Fonda, via the company Orion-Nova Productions.

The film also served as director Sidney Lumet's feature film debut, as he previously directed television drama specials. This would also be Fonda's only production credit.

Our story begins with a young Puerto Rican youth currently on trial for the first-degree murder of his father. Within five minutes of the film, the jury is released to decide on and give the final verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. What at first seems like an open and shut case turns into a claustrophobic argument when Juror #8 (played by Fonda) starts to shine reasonable doubt on the evidence presented in court.

At the head of the group that advocates for the Guilty verdict is Juror #3 (played by Lee J. Cobb), who often butts heads with Juror #8. As the film progresses, more Jurors consider the evidence with reasonable doubt until only one Juror remains on the Guilty vote- the exact opposite of the start of the film.

What stood out to me about this picture was that the Jurors who initially supported and changed to the Not Guilty vote came from either educated or minority backgrounds. For example, Fonda's character is an architect who later becomes supported by the senior member of the Jury, a man who grew up in the slums like the Defendant, a European immigrant, and a Banker.

The only exception to this is Juror #4, a broker, however, his decision is purely based on logic as opposed to the more violent and outspoken Guilty advocates Jurors numbers 3 and 10.

It is important to note that this film is a product of its time, with the main cast being entirely white and male with dialogue that is blatantly sexist mentioning the unseen female witness of the case as well as casually racist when discussing slum life and in particular, Juror #10's prejudice against the Defendant's demographic.

The latter point is often a point of contention for Juror #5, the former slumdog, who sees this as a personal attack on his background. The tempers that flare in this film and subsequently earn the film its title features as the driving point of conflict, at one point almost resulting in a physical attack between two key characters.

And that's where the timelessness and the genius of this film lays; these men from all these different backgrounds are forced by American law to stay in an uncomfortably hot room with no air conditioning and decide on a young man's right to live or die. Through the arguments, discussions, and each character's visible internal conflict we as an audience at least one trait that we identify with personally.

Part of how the film highlights the growing tension of the discussion is the use of camera work, staring out with wide angles and bright lighting while slowly transitioning to close-ups and more intense shadows.

We as the audience are drawn into the characters and their emotions and the growing discomfort of the room; both in dealing with the case at hand and with each other.

This film touches on themes and subjects that still ring true, if not louder today; those being racism, classism, and even ageism shown by some of the Juror's vocal and visible disrespect to Juror #9, the senior. Today we see these issues blaze across our feeds every second of the day and the stances we take on a group's innocence or guilt are reminiscent of the Jurors of 12 Angry Men.

In conclusion, this film carries a message about not letting prejudice and ignorance cloud a decision as monumental as life and death, even though the death penalty is rarely distributed in an American court today. A message, I believe, we all need to remind ourselves of when faced with difficult cases of guilt and innocence.

Tomatoes, you got this one Ripe.